How Often Are A Criminal Defense Attorney’s Clients Guilty?
Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010 at
6:34 pm
While this question might be difficult (maybe impossible) to answer, I was curious as to a vague percentage? I’m trying to Generic pharmacy get a feel for the ethical issues of the occupation.
In other words, would you think that a crim. defense attorney’s clients are predominately guilty of the crimes they are accused of? Is it even possible for a lawyer to only defend whom they believe to be innocent?
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
- Related posts on Attorneys
- Local law enforcement busy with drunk drivers | Best DUI Attorneys
- Spokane buy levitra onlines police fired cop on ignition interlock | Best DUI Attorneys
- Irs tax attorneys | Official Class Action Lawsuit Site
- Related posts on Clients
- 6 Questions to Ask a Potential SEO Firm – Avvo Blog
- Sugar Craze Delights » CAR RENTAL – A PEACEFUL TRIP FOR CLIENTS
- Life Insurance Agents – 5 new ways your clients' unneeded life …
- Related posts on Criminal
- Real Deal Finance » Sudan: Reaction to International Criminal …
- Feeling Minnesota.
- BibleBeltBlogger » Blog Archive » Judge gives criminal option …
Tagged with: Attorneys • Clients • Criminal • Defense • Guilty • Often
Filed under: Attorney FAQ
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
The answer is, that it doesn’t matter. If you’re in it to defend only innocent clients you won’t get very far. The job of a criminal defense attorney is to hold the State to it’s burden of proof by providing the best defense possible for their client, regardless of guilt or innocence.
Imagine a system in which lawyers were ethically bound to defend only those they thought truly innocent. Anyone charged with a crime under such a system would face an enormous initial hurdle of convincing some attorney that they are worthy of representation, and many would face the justice system without representation and surely be convicted. The practical result of such a system would be that lawyers, collectively, would have a much greater impact on the determination of guilt or innocence, than judges or juries. Is that what we want?
I understand all the ethical arguments, and the mindless, bumper-sticker lawyer bashing that goes on. And in many cases there is some justification for it. The challenge is to propose a better alternative.
the “Criminal” in crim. defense attorney isn’t there for show unfortunately
so even if once in a long while there happens to be a innocent client the majority are guilty, as far as the defense is concerned most lawyers don’t even ask wheat her the client is guilty or not, this helps them to look just at the evidence thereby eliminating any emotional bias